Global warming

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

Really politics could kill us eventually. Now both sides of global warming are politically tied to a party to the point where even the scientists bend the truth to push an agenda. Truth is thus lost eternally.

I think the old reason to preserve the environment were good enough without global warming. People just need to have guns to their heads before they do anything right, so if global warming was made up, I can understand why.

If you forget all the brain-machinations and see only what you are looking at, without inferring anything from what you see, then an early cold snap is an early cold snap. An early cold snap in no way resembles global warming, whatever global warming is. You are unable to see global warming, since your eyes are not able to see anything global. A bit like a belief in God, eh? Can't see that either. Which does not mean it doesn't (or does) exist.

When I look outside into my garden, I see what is there. It changes, day to day. I can not reasonably infer anything about global conditions from what I see. Neither can my rabbit.

When scientists the world over can report their observations to each other, aided by technological investigations of what is happening in reality, that gives a basis for a global conception of weather trajectory. It is different from a belief in "God". I have no knowledge of "God" and what "God" is up to; therefore I can't say, "God didn't make it snow today because of X"; whereas a scientific explanation can say "It did not snow today because of X leading to Y, which we can prove by showing data collected in the area over a certain # of years."

Alternatively, you can't see radiation either but you wouldn't want to stick your testicles in the microwave.

Whether scientists have accurately done their research for global warming is a separate discussion. I have no idea whether the earth is warming, but it's apparent to me that humans are in the process of inducing ecocide and any limitation on the modern technological state from the global warming hysterics crowd is probably a good thing.

So you believe what you want to believe, especially if you think it is a good thing. You prefer to trust unknown hordes of people, via mass-media representation, over your own senses and powers of observation. That's pretty normal.

So you believe what you want to believe, especially if you think it is a good thing.

Quote from: me

Whether scientists have accurately done their research for global warming is a separate discussion. I have no idea whether the earth is warming,

In what way does this affirm a belief in global warming?

Also, "So you believe what you want to believe, especially if you think it is a good thing." has been used around here before as a legitimate defense for believing in God. How is it acceptable then, but not when I'm (accused) of doing it?

Quote

You prefer to trust unknown hordes of people, via mass-media representation, over your own senses and powers of observation.

I am willing to consider scientists' observations as a supplement to my own.